Philippians 2:7 Specifically ἑαυτὸν

John Milton

Well-known member
Jesus was "in" the form of God and emptied "himself" from the only thing he was "in" in context. Then he was "in" the form of a slave, a human being under law born of a Jewish woman. (Gal 4:4).

The verb "empty" with the direct object of himself (what was emptied from being "in" the form of God) makes the form of God and the form of a slave mutually exclusive.
In other words, nothing changed about Jesus except for the form that he took? Is this what you are saying?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
In other words, nothing changed about Jesus except for the form that he took? Is this what you are saying?
No, but we don't get those details from this passage.

John 1:3-4 tells us life was "in" the Word and so when the Word was made flesh that life was in the human baby. I see that as included in the direct object of "empty" in Philippians.

Obviously we do not know what this all entails and I do speculate on some details to fill in the gaps.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
No, but we don't get those details from this passage.
So does that mean in this passage (in isolation) the only thing you think the text is saying is that Jesus changed forms?
John 1:3-4 tells us life was "in" the Word and so when the Word was made flesh that life was in the human baby. I see that as included in the direct object of "empty" in Philippians.
I don't follow you. I suppose this is the part where your erroneous distinction between the "things that came into existence through the Word" and "the life that came into existence 'in' the Word" comes into play.
Obviously we do not know what this all entails and I do speculate on some details to fill in the gaps.
No problem.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So does that mean in this passage (in isolation) the only thing you think the text is saying is that Jesus changed forms?

I don't know. I will say that the "himself" that was emptied from being in the form of God was sufficient to give him the same identity in the form of a man.



I don't follow you. I suppose this is the part where your erroneous distinction between the "things that came into existence through the Word" and "the life that came into existence 'in' the Word" comes into play.


I use the punctuation in Nestle Aland. The distinction is in the syntax. One is intermediate agency with δια, and the other in instrumental agency with εν.

But this is not necessary for Philippians 2. I was just trying to be accommodating.
No problem.

You are welcome.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I don't know. I will say that the "himself" that was emptied from being in the form of God was sufficient to give him the same identity in the form of a man.
Ok.
I use the punctuation in Nestle Aland. The distinction is in the syntax. One is intermediate agency with δια, and the other in instrumental agency with εν. But this is not necessary for Philippians 2. I was just trying to be accommodating.
The text does not support two separate "coming into existence" events regardless of the punctuation you use, because the text says that all things came into existence through the Word.
You are welcome.
(y)
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Ok.

The text does not support two separate "coming into existence" events regardless of the punctuation you use, because the text says that all things came into existence through the Word.

RT:
The all things that came into existence by the Father through the Word (BDAG lists this as intermediate agency) necessarily excludes both agents, the Father and the Word. And yes, it's appropriate to consider the Father as a "thing" as 1 Corinthians 15:27 attests. But if you over-press πάντα you are left with that dilemma. The "life" that came to be "in" the Word is his instrumental agency and not his intermediate agency. So it is distinguished from what came into existence by his intermediate agency. I am not using the KJV punctuation, but the more scholarly Nestle Aland. I apologize in advance if you prefer the Textus Receptus.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Roger Thornhill said:
The all things that came into existence by the Father through the Word (BDAG lists this as intermediate agency) necessarily excludes both agents, the Father and the Word.
It doesn't "exclude" them because they didn't come into existence in the first place.

Roger Thornhill said:
And yes, it's appropriate to consider the Father as a "thing" as 1 Corinthians 15:27 attests. But if you over-press πάντα you are left with that dilemma.
As stated above, there is no dilemma. God and Jesus are eternal; they didn't come into existence.

Roger Thornhill said:
The "life" that came to be "in" the Word is his instrumental agency and not his intermediate agency. So it is distinguished from what came into existence by his intermediate agency.
Both constructions describe Jesus as the personal agent who brought all things into existence. There is no discrepancy there. But even if you insist on imagining some sort of agency distinction where there isn't any, "all things arose through him" forbids a separate "coming into existence" event. You would simply be forced to understand ἐν as something else, like a local dative.

Roger Thornhill said:
I am not using the KJV punctuation, but the more scholarly Nestle Aland. I apologize in advance if you prefer the Textus Receptus.
I'm not sure why you are repeating this. Do you think it makes a difference? It doesn't.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
It doesn't "exclude" them because they didn't come into existence in the first place.
It excludes anyone involved in that activity. Your circular reasoning that it excludes Jesus because he is eternal is a logical fallacy.

The reason for the change in punctuation proves this. It started when the pneumomachians started to teach that the Holy Spirit was the first thing created by God through the Word. Without the change to "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" this was a grammatical possibility.

This is logical since the HS is not said to be in the beginning with God and John did not say all things through the Word by means of the HS.


As stated above, there is no dilemma. God and Jesus are eternal; they didn't come into existence.

You really do like circular reasoning


Both constructions describe Jesus as the personal agent who brought all things into existence. There is no discrepancy there.

What came to be in him was life is instrumental agency and since BDAG associates J 5:26 with this verse so will I:

β. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b (ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως ParJer 9:14). ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a; cp. 1J 5:11b.

Note that the gloss extends to the semicolon after 1:4.

When someone is given something they are not the ultimate or personal agent in that action. The Son is the receptacle or instrument of life, the crucible of life.


But even if you insist on imagining some sort of agency distinction where there isn't any, "all things arose through him" forbids a separate "coming into existence" event. You would simply be forced to understand ἐν as something else, like a local dative.

Nope. The NA28 punctuation is a predicate nominative and life is equated with what came to be in him. It's not merely "in" him. But it is certainly locative. The baker baked the cake in (by means of) the pan. The pan is the instrument and the cake is in the pan.

I'm not sure why you are repeating this. Do you think it makes a difference? It doesn't.

Repeating what?
 
Last edited:

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Perhaps it’s terrible because it doesn’t reflect your theology?
You and @Gryllus Maior do have more in common on this verse than we do.

He also sees that Jesus was in the form of God and continued to be so after he took the form of man.

You both see the emptying as having an object added to the text, like prerogatives.

I say "you" as other BUs teach this, and if I presume too much I apologize.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Lol, I just realized that I had accidentally put Roger on ignore for the last few days. I’ve never put anyone on ignore ( purposely), and I’m not starting now.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
It excludes anyone involved in that activity. Your circular reasoning that it excludes Jesus because he is eternal is a logical fallacy.
Unfortunately for you, it isn't circular reasoning. The author clearly wrote that "all things were made through him" and emphatically adds "not even one thing arose without him" to make clear that was exactly what he meant to say. The ONLY way for that to be true is if the word wasn't made.
The reason for the change in punctuation proves this. It started when the pneumomachians started to teach that the Holy Spirit was the first thing created by God through the Word. Without the change to "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" this was a grammatical possibility.
The earliest manuscripts were unlikely to have had any punctuation. Besides that, you don't know for certain which punctuation is the earliest; or why it was selected in the first place; or if one punctuation were ever changed to another; or whether or not competing punctuation systems arose independently, etc, etc. Your statement is what faulty logic truly looks like.
This is logical since the HS is not said to be in the beginning with God and John did not say all things through the Word by means You really do like circular reasoning
I'm not sure what this gibberish means: "John did not say all things through the Word by means." Regardless, if the HS was created, it was made through Jesus. If it wasn't, then he wasn't. It's completely logical, but you sure like your ad hominems.
What came to be in him was life is instrumental agency and since BDAG associates J 5:26 with this verse so will I:

β. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b (ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως ParJer 9:14). ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a; cp. 1J 5:11b.

Note that the gloss extends to the semicolon after 1:4.

When someone is given something they are not the ultimate or personal agent in that action. The Son is the receptacle or instrument of life, the crucible

you will.
Or, you could understand it correctly (since John 1 tells us that Jesus wasn't created)....Jesus was speaking about his current state (his condition at the time of the utterance) as a man who had taken on the form of a servant.
Nope. The NA28 punctuation is a predicate nominative and life is equated with what came to be in him. It's not merely "in" him.
What are you saying, "nope" to? There is a single creation event and it is mentioned in verse 3. The text says "what had come into existence*" (You should know by now it refers to the stuff created in verse 3 not to a new creation event.) was life. What you think "in him" modifies really doesn't make much difference. The text is that clear.

*It's a perfect, but this rendering will suffice.
But it is certainly locative. The baker baked the cake in (by means of) the pan. The pan is the instrument and the cake is in the pan.
These are two competing explanations. It's either one or the other. (And agency is probably the thing most abused by people who don't know the language. The terms have more to do with grammatical categories and conceptualization than they do with representing a concrete reality. As I have said countless times before, Pharaoh is said to have built the pyramids, but he didn't touch a stone. There is a deed and there is the credit for the deed, and the description does not have to match the reality. That is why the Bible can say both the law was given by God and the law was given by the prophets.)
Repeating what?
Um, the part I quoted?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Unfortunately for you, it isn't circular reasoning. The author clearly wrote that "all things were made through him" and emphatically adds "not even one thing arose without him" to make clear that was exactly what he meant to say. The ONLY way for that to be true is if the word wasn't made.

The earliest manuscripts were unlikely to have had any punctuation. Besides that, you don't know for certain which punctuation is the earliest; or why it was selected in the first place; or if one punctuation were ever changed to another; or whether or not competing punctuation systems arose independently, etc, etc. Your statement is what faulty logic truly looks like.

I'm not sure what this gibberish means: "John did not say all things through the Word by means." Regardless, if the HS was created, it was made through Jesus. If it wasn't, then he wasn't. It's completely logical, but you sure like your ad hominems.

Or, you could understand it correctly (since John 1 tells us that Jesus wasn't created)....Jesus was speaking about his current state (his condition at the time of the utterance) as a man who had taken on the form of a servant.

What are you saying, "nope" to? There is a single creation event and it is mentioned in verse 3. The text says "what had come into existence*" (You should know by now it refers to the stuff created in verse 3 not to a new creation event.) was life. What you think "in him" modifies really doesn't make much difference. The text is that clear.

*It's a perfect, but this rendering will suffice.

These are two competing explanations. It's either one or the other. (And agency is probably the thing most abused by people who don't know the language. The terms have more to do with grammatical categories and conceptualization than they do with representing a concrete reality. As I have said countless times before, Pharaoh is said to have built the pyramids, but he didn't touch a stone. There is a deed and there is the credit for the deed, and the description does not have to match the reality. That is why the Bible can say both the law was given by God and the law was given by the prophets.)

Um, the part I quoted?
You said:
These are two competing explanations. It's either one or the other. (And agency is probably the thing most abused by people who don't know the language. The terms have more to do with grammatical categories and conceptualization than they do with representing a concrete reality. As I have said countless times before, Pharaoh is said to have built the pyramids, but he didn't touch a stone. There is a deed and there is the credit for the deed, and the description does not have to match the reality. That is why the Bible can say both the law was given by God and the law was given by the prophets.)

RT:
Dative is the case of instrument. Εν specifies location. Both elements are present.

Smyth shows that the instrumental dative can have more than one function simultaneously.

1521. The comitative form of the instrumental dative denotes the persons or things which accompany or take part in an action.

The person or thing is the location of the action.

So life came to be "in" the Son by his Father giving it to him, J 5:26.

That being said, John is fond of double meanings. If εν + dative in a particular context can mean two different things he may have had both in mind.
 
Last edited:

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Unfortunately for you, it isn't circular reasoning. The author clearly wrote that "all things were made through him" and emphatically adds "not even one thing arose without him" to make clear that was exactly what he meant to say. The ONLY way for that to be true is if the word wasn't made.

The earliest manuscripts were unlikely to have had any punctuation. Besides that, you don't know for certain which punctuation is the earliest; or why it was selected in the first place; or if one punctuation were ever changed to another; or whether or not competing punctuation systems arose independently, etc, etc. Your statement is what faulty logic truly looks like.

I'm not sure what this gibberish means: "John did not say all things through the Word by means." Regardless, if the HS was created, it was made through Jesus. If it wasn't, then he wasn't. It's completely logical, but you sure like your ad hominems.

Or, you could understand it correctly (since John 1 tells us that Jesus wasn't created)....Jesus was speaking about his current state (his condition at the time of the utterance) as a man who had taken on the form of a servant.

What are you saying, "nope" to? There is a single creation event and it is mentioned in verse 3. The text says "what had come into existence*" (You should know by now it refers to the stuff created in verse 3 not to a new creation event.) was life. What you think "in him" modifies really doesn't make much difference. The text is that clear.

*It's a perfect, but this rendering will suffice.

These are two competing explanations. It's either one or the other. (And agency is probably the thing most abused by people who don't know the language. The terms have more to do with grammatical categories and conceptualization than they do with representing a concrete reality. As I have said countless times before, Pharaoh is said to have built the pyramids, but he didn't touch a stone. There is a deed and there is the credit for the deed, and the description does not have to match the reality. That is why the Bible can say both the law was given by God and the law was given by the prophets.)

Um, the part I quoted?
You said:
Unfortunately for you, it isn't circular reasoning. The author clearly wrote that "all things were made through him" and emphatically adds "not even one thing arose without him" to make clear that was exactly what he meant to say. The ONLY way for that to be true is if the word wasn't made.

Did I miss your rebuttal to the fact that the Father is a thing too in 1 Co 15? You have more than a theological assertion, I hope.

The Greek Grammar by Blass and Debrunner (BDF) says:

"Further ellipses: (1) The omission of the notion 'other, whatever' (§ 306 (5)) is specifically Greek."

And so we find examples like:

NRS Sirach 1:4 Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity. προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφία καὶ σύνεσις φρονήσεως ἐξ αἰῶνος
 

froggy

Active member
You said:
Unfortunately for you, it isn't circular reasoning. The author clearly wrote that "all things were made through him" and emphatically adds "not even one thing arose without him" to make clear that was exactly what he meant to say. The ONLY way for that to be true is if the word wasn't made.

Did I miss your rebuttal to the fact that the Father is a thing too in 1 Co 15? You have more than a theological assertion, I hope.

The Greek Grammar by Blass and Debrunner (BDF) says:

"Further ellipses: (1) The omission of the notion 'other, whatever' (§ 306 (5)) is specifically Greek."

And so we find examples like:

NRS Sirach 1:4 Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity. προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφία καὶ σύνεσις φρονήσεως ἐξ αἰῶνος
 
Last edited:
Top